• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Challenges to COOL Have NO Standing

A

Anonymous

Guest
July 2, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Canada, Mexico Have No Standing

to Bring Complaint Against U.S. COOL Law




Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA has filed formal comments with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to emphasize that the group believes it is fundamentally contrary to the U.S. Constitution for USTR to agree that foreign governments – specifically Canada and Mexico – have any standing whatsoever to bring a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) against our constitutionally passed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law.



“We urge the USTR to take deliberate and decisive steps to quash Canada’s and Mexico’s attempts to interfere with the United States’ sovereign right to inform U.S. consumers using the most accurate and truthful means possible – about the origins of the food they purchase for themselves and their families,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “We agree with USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) that our COOL law is consistent with international standards and we believe the complaints by Canada and Mexico against the U.S. COOL law are baseless. Unfortunately, this WTO dispute procedure grants those countries an overly simplified forum to retaliate against U.S. citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.”



The U.S. COOL law imposes no duty or restrictions on any foreign government, nor imposes any limits on the volume or type of commodities that a foreign country may export to the United States.



Also, foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.



In addition, COOL jurisdiction is exclusively limited to U.S. retailers, as defined exclusively by U.S. law, and subjects all covered commodities marketed by U.S. retailers to identical information requirements, regardless of where the commodities originate.



“Thus, our domestic COOL law does not affect international trade agreements, and it is fundamentally inappropriate for the WTO to even entertain a foreign country’s complaint against our domestic COOL law,” Bullard emphasized.



In addition to the comprehensive comments submitted on Monday to USTR – which address each of the eight separate allegations raised against the U.S. COOL law by Canada and Mexico – Bullard also has recently met personally on behalf of R-CALF USA with USTR officials at their Washington, D.C., headquarters. During that meeting he presented import, slaughter and consumption data to explain that it is supply and demand factors that have caused changes in import volumes, not the implementation of COOL as Canada and Mexico allege.



“COOL enables consumers to freely choose between food products of various origins,” said Bullard. “Consumers’ choices will influence the market demand for products from any given country. This is how a competitive market is supposed to work, and neither Canada, nor Mexico, nor the WTO have any right to take that competitive market away from U.S. consumers.”
 

Tex

Well-known member
Also, foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.
 

Kato

Well-known member
So I guess we're not obligated to ship oil south either eh???

Ya right........... that would really go over well, wouldn't it?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kato said:
So I guess we're not obligated to ship oil south either eh???

Ya right........... that would really go over well, wouldn't it?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

No. You are not obligated to ship oil south (unless you had some mutually agreed to contract). People do it to sell it and have money to buy other things. You don't have to sell it. Keep it if you want to.

Tex
 

burnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
Kato said:
So I guess we're not obligated to ship oil south either eh???

Ya right........... that would really go over well, wouldn't it?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

No. You are not obligated to ship oil south (unless you had some mutually agreed to contract). People do it to sell it and have money to buy other things. You don't have to sell it. Keep it if you want to.

Tex

Ya I guess we could do that (keep it to ourselves) if we had a military that could keep yours :twisted: out because you would not hesitate to "purge our country of weapons of mass destruction". Do you really believe what you just wrote?? From this perspective, a contract with the U.S. is only binding if it benefits the U.S. There are plenty of examples of such.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Doesn't anybody realize how rediculous things have gotten and how priorities have become so skewed when you can't even make a simple law - a law that citizens of the country are asking for - that tells them where their food comes from because foreigners are against it? Does anybody think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc... would approve of this going on in the country that they created?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Doesn't anybody realize how rediculous things have gotten and how priorities have become so skewed when you can't even make a simple law - a law that citizens of the country are asking for - that tells them where their food comes from because foreigners are against it? Does anybody think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc... would approve of this going on in the country that they created?


Yes, it is ridiculous. The traders have made the rules as if they own everything.

I personally think that we should combat this kind of stuff with creative ways of putting costs on those who don't want to label. For instance, if you don't go along with the labeling, then your label on country of origin has to be the largest print on the package. If the importers don't want to do that, then they can just keep all of their products with as little labeling as they want.

Trade isn't a right, it is a privilege. No person from any other country should forget this because in a crunch, trade will be used by politicians as a tool of force. Food is such an important item for the people of any country that all countries should be able to regulate it in the way that keeps their population the best fed.

Tex
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Pesonally I give a **** about COOL - let it be - people will buy what they want.

However - we relate it all to beef.

What about vegetable soup?

Got to stop looking at life through a straw - which is so typical of most ranchers

Going to be interesting to see how all those veggies get labelled.

Or how all those ingredients imported to make ice cream fall in to play.

Other than energy, the next biggest issue is water - if it comes from Canada is it going to be labelled?

Canada has lots and the U.S. of A. is running short in many areas.

Laws in Canada have prevented the sale of water to foreign countries - treaties have prevented the Grat Lakes from being diverted.

In 30 years there will be some interesting times ahead.

Yeah I know - I am being facetious - but go ahead and label away - our cow herd will always sell to someone - besides at the rate it is shrinking it will not matter anyways - we will begin to be net importers of beef unless things change

So will you folks for that matter

BC
 

Tex

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Pesonally I give a s*** about COOL - let it be - people will buy what they want.

However - we relate it all to beef.

What about vegetable soup?

Got to stop looking at life through a straw - which is so typical of most ranchers

Going to be interesting to see how all those veggies get labelled.

Or how all those ingredients imported to make ice cream fall in to play.

Other than energy, the next biggest issue is water - if it comes from Canada is it going to be labelled?

Canada has lots and the U.S. of A. is running short in many areas.

Laws in Canada have prevented the sale of water to foreign countries - treaties have prevented the Grat Lakes from being diverted.

In 30 years there will be some interesting times ahead.

Yeah I know - I am being facetious - but go ahead and label away - our cow herd will always sell to someone - besides at the rate it is shrinking it will not matter anyways - we will begin to be net importers of beef unless things change

So will you folks for that matter

BC

Broke, labeling your product from Canada should be turned into an asset, not a liability by you.

If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.

We have spent so much time on this COOL issue, which should have been a no brainer and less on holding the oligarchs accountable. It has been a great diversion for them for ranchers in both countries.

Tex
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Tex said:
If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.

Tex

I honestly do not know how anyone could argue with either of these two sentences you wrote - although I am sure someone will try. :D

Cheers

BC
 

burnt

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Tex said:
If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.

Tex

I honestly do not know how anyone could argue with either of these two sentences you wrote - although I am sure someone will try. :D

Cheers

BC

While perhaps no one should/could argue with either statement, the first is one of the stupidest statements anyone could make, and thus, they should be ashamed to have it connected with their name, if they had a lick of sense.

To make such a comment is, sadly, either a gauge of deep ignorance or simply intended to be inflammatory.


Because, as it has been repeatedly said here, it is not the producers taking the label off - it is your own domestic interests that do it. If you have a need for COOL and it isn't happening, then lay the blame AND the cost where it belongs, and that is NOT on the CDN producers.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Burnt, "Because, as it has been repeatedly said here, it is not the producers taking the label off - it is your own domestic interests that do it."

That is exactly right. The next question is WHY are they doing that and does it benefit any of us on either side of the border? I think you'll find that it's not a good thing for US OR Canadian producers. Therefore, why support it?
 

Tex

Well-known member
burnt said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Tex said:
If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.

Tex

I honestly do not know how anyone could argue with either of these two sentences you wrote - although I am sure someone will try. :D

Cheers

BC

While perhaps no one should/could argue with either statement, the first is one of the stupidest statements anyone could make, and thus, they should be ashamed to have it connected with their name, if they had a lick of sense.

To make such a comment is, sadly, either a gauge of deep ignorance or simply intended to be inflammatory.


Because, as it has been repeatedly said here, it is not the producers taking the label off - it is your own domestic interests that do it. If you have a need for COOL and it isn't happening, then lay the blame AND the cost where it belongs, and that is NOT on the CDN producers.

Just call them the international meat mafia.

Tex
 

Kato

Well-known member
Maybe they're afraid that people in the U.S. will find that it's the Canadian beef that tastes better? :wink: :wink: :D :D :D How's that for an inflammatory comment? :wink:

Actually what it comes down to is what is the definition of U.S. beef. That's the basis if the Canadian and Mexican challenge. It's a fact that according to the terms of NAFTA, the definition of U.S. beef is that it is beef processed in an American plant, under American inspection and processing protocols.

Simple as that. [bold]Process it in the U.S. and it is U.S. beef. [/bold]

Where it is born has no relevance.

Now, Canadian beef on the other hand is processed under much stricter protocols regarding SRM removal and such, and should be labeled Canadian if it is imported [bold]after [/bold]processing. After all, our higher standards are a marketing advantage. In the future you will probably be seeing this fact being advertised along with our beef as well, especially if we find we are needing to get the edge on you in order to survive. Within less than two years we will have our tracking system up and running and then we can add total traceability to the mix, and have another box checked off on the list of things needed to get the jump on U.S. commodity beef.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Kato,Your comment: Within less than two years we will have our tracking system up and running and then we can add total traceability to the mix,

Why take so long when ScoringAg can have you up and running in two months including hardware. Ten times cheaper !

Why don't you contact some of the Canadian Reps. from ScoringAg?

http://www.scoringsystem.com/scoringsystem/sandbox/sales/america/index.cfm
 

Kato

Well-known member
What I meant by that is that the auction marts and such will be required to have scanners and record movement. The system is already designed, and the databases are set up and waiting. It's just a matter of having the participation level up to speed.

I think it's about 2012 that it's all supposed to be fully functional.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Kato said:
Maybe they're afraid that people in the U.S. will find that it's the Canadian beef that tastes better? :wink: :wink: :D :D :D How's that for an inflammatory comment? :wink:

Actually what it comes down to is what is the definition of U.S. beef. That's the basis if the Canadian and Mexican challenge. It's a fact that according to the terms of NAFTA, the definition of U.S. beef is that it is beef processed in an American plant, under American inspection and processing protocols.

Simple as that. [bold]Process it in the U.S. and it is U.S. beef. [/bold]

Where it is born has no relevance.

Now, Canadian beef on the other hand is processed under much stricter protocols regarding SRM removal and such, and should be labeled Canadian if it is imported [bold]after [/bold]processing. After all, our higher standards are a marketing advantage. In the future you will probably be seeing this fact being advertised along with our beef as well, especially if we find we are needing to get the edge on you in order to survive. Within less than two years we will have our tracking system up and running and then we can add total traceability to the mix, and have another box checked off on the list of things needed to get the jump on U.S. commodity beef.

Yup, the NAFTA agreement is pretty clear that a product is a product of the country in which it has been signifigantly changed. That's why we can import berries from Mexico and turn it into jam as a product of Canada. Those are the rules our respective nations agreed to play by when the documents were signed. And those are the rules that we take advantage of on both sides of the border on a regular basis. Suddenly that's not good enough because somebody thinks they can get a leg up by playing games.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
According to NAFTA, there's such a thing as Canadian orange juice.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I tell ya, there's no orange juice like Canadian orange juice..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker, you know as well as I do, treaties trump sovereignty, in this globalist climate.

Anyone that thinks Obama and his WTO/UN/WHO cronies are going to side with sovereignty over global treaties is fooling themselves.
 
Top